AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Vol. 37, No. 4, December 31, 2002
SCIENTIFIC BULLETIN
Received on : 10/10/2002
Accepted on : 24/12/2002
PP. : 55-71

Building Subsidence Associated with Cut-and-Cover
Excavations in Alluvial Soils


AHMED H. ABDEL-RAHMAN
1
SAYED M. EL-SAYED
2


ABSTRACT
Assessment of building settlements associated with each stage of strutted
deep excavations has become an essential step in most of the projects. Reliable
prediction for the settlement comes by addressing all factors controlling its
development in a mathematical representation. Among these factors are the
subsurface soil condition, the foundation type and depth of the neighboring
buildings, the stages of excavation, and the overall stiffness of the retaining
system. This paper presents a case history in Egypt in which the settlements of
existing structures surrounding a deep excavation retained by strutted diaphragm
walls were monitored and the measured values were back-analyzed. The analysis
showed that building settlements during the different stages of deep excavations
are substantially influenced by the foundation depth of the proximate buildings
and its relation to the depth of excavation at any construction stage.

Key Words: Cut-and-cover; trenching, strutted excavation, settlement;
monitoring programs; piles, shallow foundations.

.
.
.

.
.

1
Assistant Professor, Civil Eng. Dept., Engineering Research Division, National Research Center of Egypt.
2
Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering Dept., Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
1. INTRODUCTION
As a result of the urgent needs to improve the urban environment in Greater
Cairo, plans for environmental development call for relocating many services to
the underground space via engineered deep excavations. This approach has
increasingly become vital due to the scarcity of the ground space and the high cost
of lands. Cut-and-cover construction techniques employing diaphragm walls has
proved to be very successful in the construction of many underground projects in
Greater Cairo such as basements, underground garages, tunnels, and subway
stations.
The geological formations encountered during the construction of deep
excavation projects in Egypt are typically alluvial soils with a shallow
groundwater table. These conditions are classified as problematic from the
geotechnical point of view, especially if the deep excavation is located near to
structurally sensitive buildings (El-Sohby and Mazen, 1985). Challenged with the
precarious geological conditions in Greater Cairo, geotechnical engineers are
often required to meet the restricted contractual provisions of the minimal loss of
support to existing foundations and limited deformations of buildings, streets, and
utilities surrounding the excavation.
Peck (1969b) provided the first comprehensive review of the factors that
control the deformations induced by deep excavations in alluvial soils. Although
his findings are now outdated, he explained that local subsurface conditions,
depth of excavation, and workmanship quality are the most distinguishing factors
affecting ground deformations near excavations.
Many researchers recommended settlement distributions associated with
the installation of diaphragm walls. Goldberg et al. (1976) reviewed 63 monitored
case histories of deep excavations in which they correlated the maximum
settlement to the soil type and the depth of excavation. Clough and O'Rourke
(1990) suggested settlement profiles in alluvial soils as shown in Fig. (1).
Recently, Bentler (1998) examined 17 case histories recorded from 1990 to 1998
and also provided recommendations for settlement troughs in alluvial soils. A
comparison between the recommended values of the maximum settlement with
respect to the maximum depth of excavation is given in Table (1).
Monitoring programs for deep excavations are not only used as a safety
measure against distress of nearby buildings and buried utilities, but also can be
utilized to predict future performance of alike projects under similar geotechnical
formations (Peck, 1969a; El-Nahhas, 1992; Murray, 1990; Leca & Clough, 1994;
Thasnanipan et al., 1999). Settlements due to deep excavation projects in Greater
Cairo were monitored and reported by various researchers, e.g. El-Nahhas et al.
(1990) and Ahmed & Abd El-Salam, (1996). However, there is an escalating
necessity to address the building subsidence taken into considerations the
conditions of the nearby buildings. Attewell et al. (1986) reported that ground
deformations due to underground constructions could be influenced substantially
by the configurations of the nearby buildings along with the subsurface soil
conditions.
The current research sheds a light on the effect of foundation type and its
depth on the settlements associated with deep excavations in alluvial soils. A case
history is presented where settlements of buildings with shallow and pile
foundations were monitored during a cut-and-cover excavation performed to
construct a basement of a multistory building in Giza, Egypt. The settlement was
monitored during each stage of construction including diaphragm wall trenching,
and all steps of strutting and excavation until reaching the design level of
foundation. Back-analyses were performed on the monitored data to define
settlement troughs associated with strutted deep excavation in alluvial soil
conditions. The results are also compared with some of the widely used
settlement troughs.

2. SITE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
The project site is located in Dokki, Giza, Egypt away from the river Nile
by about 1.0 km. Giza is a part of the Greater Cairo area that extends along both
banks of the Nile south of the apex of the Delta. Generally, the geology of Giza is
characterized by tertiary sedimentary soils and rocks and quaternary soils, both
underlain by older basement rocks. The project area lies within the young alluvial
plain representing the lowland portion of the Nile Valley in the Greater Cairo area.
(Rushdi, 1989).
A geotechnical subsurface investigation program was performed including
the execution of 8 boreholes of 25m depth. The subsurface soil profile consists
generally from a top fill layer appeared from ground surface to a depth of 2.0 m,
followed by a silty sand layer up to a depth of 5.0 m. A layer of medium dense fine
to medium sand with some silt followed the silty sand layer to a depth of 11.0 m.
A dense to very dense graded sand layer followed the previous layer and extended
to the end of the boreholes at 25.0 m. The bottom sand layer occasionally
contained a percentage of fine gravel in the range of 5.0% to 15%. The results of
the SPT tests with depth are presented in Fig. (2). The groundwater is located at an
average depth of 2.00 m.
Five buildings, designated A, B, C, D and E, are located near to the
diaphragm wall as shown in Fig. (3). Buildings (A), (B), and (C) are 12 to 14
stories, founded on piles of lengths ranging between 14.00 m and 16.00 m.
Building (D) is a five story building and building (E) is a two-story building,
founded on shallow foundations at a depth of about 2.0 m to 3.0 m.

3. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
A bottom-up construction method with two levels of temporary bracing
was adopted during excavation to construct the foundation and basement floors of
the multistory building. The contractor used a typical cast-in-situ diaphragm wall
installation procedure using the mechanical grab bucket for excavation. The
diaphragm wall was 21.0 m depth, and 0.60 m width. During the trenching phase,
the sides of the trench were stabilized by regulated and controlled bentonite
drilling fluid. The wall comprises 20 panels, as shown in Fig. (3), executed in the
sequence given in Table (2).
The natural groundwater level was required to be kept at its original level
outside the excavation boundary to prevent any damage that might occur to
nearby buildings as a result of dewatering inside the excavation pit. Therefore, a
grout plug, using cement and silica gel, was executed between levels (-18.00 m)
and (-21.00 m) after completion of all diaphragm wall panels. This is in order to
prevent bottom seepage towards the site, while dewatering from inside the pit.
The subsequent phases of execution included the excavation of 9,100 cubic
meters of soil and the installation of lateral support for each panel to exclude the
use of walings. Most of the panels were supported using structural steel pipe struts
with outside diameters of 900 mm and a thickness of 9.0 mm. Some panels were
supported using tie-back anchors to provide sufficient space to move equipment
and soil from/to the pit. Fig. (4) demonstrates the different stages of construction.
A careful coordination between the mass excavation and installation of the
lateral bracing was accomplished to restrain the movements of the diaphragm
walls and safely maintain the sequence of activities. To achieve this goal, the site
was sectioned into 4 parts as shown in Fig. (3). Table (3) shows the synchronized
sequence of excavation performed for the four parts. Upon completion of the
excavation, at a depth of 10.8 m below ground surface, the concrete base mat was
constructed.

4. MONITORING PROGRAM
Developing of an instrumentation system begins with the definition of the
objectives of the program and proceeds through a comprehensive series of steps
that include all aspects of the required system (Dunnicliff, 1988). The program
concentrated on settlement measurements of the buildings surrounding the
excavation. This concept is compatible with the common criteria to assess
damage of buildings due to excavation, which are usually based on settlements
and differential settlements (Boscardin and Cording, 1989; Ou et al., 1993; Boone,
1997; Seok, 2001).
Optical surveying methods, with accuracy of 0.1 mm, were used to monitor
the magnitude and rate of vertical deformations of 31 settlement points during the
period from July 5, 2001 to March 24, 2002. The locations of the monitored points
were determined based on predicted behavior of the site to elude any geotechnical
and structural concerns. The layout of the instrumentation plan tend to provide
more monitoring data about building "A", as shown in Fig. (3), because the wall is
just 1.80 m from this building which means that its piles are closer to the
diaphragm wall boundary.

5. OBSERVED SETTLEMENT
The compiled data were evaluated to assess building settlements associated
with the diaphragm wall installation and deep excavation for the basement.
Results of the monitored settlement versus time, starting from installation of the
diaphragm wall panels up to the excavation to the foundation level, are presented
in Fig. (5). Table (4) shows the total settlement of different points due to
diaphragm wall installation only (stage 1), and due to the complete site excavation
(end to stage 4) along with the settlement increment between the two stages. The
following sections discuss the observed settlement during the installation of the
diaphragm wall and throughout the execution of the strutted deep excavation.

5.1 Settlement Due to Stage 1-Diaphragm Wall Installation
The plotted records indicate that buildings subsidence increased for all
points due to the trenching for the wall panels, which ended in mid of August
2001. A maximum settlement of 8.5 mm was recorded during trenching at the
location of point 15 (Building A on pile foundations), while a null settlement
was recorded at point 30 (Building C on pile foundations also). That could be
related to the fact that point 15 is located very close to the diaphragm wall, while
point 30 is located more than 40 m from the corner of the construction site. Points
20, 21, and 26 went through a minor upward movement of 0.6 mm between
August 2, 2001 and August 6, 2001, while no activities on site was going during
that period.
Figures 6 and 7 show plots of all settlement values with distances away
from the wall. It can be seen that points of the same distance from the wall had
diverse settlement values. That might be attributed to reasons related to the
sequence of panel construction of the wall, the change in the subsurface soil
conditions underneath each building, or due to each building stiffness and rigidity
(El-Sayed and Abdel-Rahman, 2002). But, generally the average settlements of
all buildings can be expressed with one envelope regardless of their foundation
type. That envelope was recommended by (Abdel-Rahman and El-Sayed, 2002)
to be with a maximum settlement equivalent to 0.045% of the diaphragm wall
trench depth, while its extent away from the wall reaches to twice the same trench
depth. Analysis of building settlement during the installation of the diaphragm
wall of this project were reported and discussed in details by Abdel-Rahman and
El-Sayed (2002). The proposed distribution of the settlement trough was
expressed by the following equation:

6
max
2
2

=
d
x d
S S
trenching trenching
.(1)

Where,
trenching
S is the settlement at a distance x from the trench
boundary,
trenching
S
max
is the maximum settlement at the trench location, and d is
the trench depth.

5.2 Settlement Due to Stages 2 to 4-Excavation Inside the Pit
During the excavation inside the pit, points (1) and (2) of building A,
founded on pile foundation, experienced only insignificant values of heave (0.5
mm max.). Some other points did not have any change in their settlements, e.g.
points (27), (28), (29), and (30) of buildings B, and C founded on pile
foundations. However, buildings founded on shallow foundations suffered from
high additional settlements due to the execution of stages 2 to 4 (maximum
settlement increment of about 11.0 mm with an average increment at distance 3.2
m from the wall equal to 8.4 mm). Settlement of points on deep foundations
showed much less settlement increments (max. 4.7 mm with an average
increment at distance 2.5 m from the wall equal to 1.78 mm).
It is also worth noting that only points 18 and 19 of building B indicated
the maximum settlement values monitored for buildings on deep foundation (4.7
mm), and generally didnt follow the pattern of behavior of the rest of their similar
25 settlement points, as shown in Fig. (6-b). That is although building B is
located a bit away from the excavation boundary than building A. This pattern
could be related to the relatively short distance between the depth of its pile tip
(14.0 m from ground surface, as reported or could be less when executed) and the
maximum depth of excavation inside the pit (10.80 m). Therefore, points (18) and
(19) located on building B were excluded in developing a settlement envelope
for buildings on pile foundations due to deep excavation as shown in Figure (6-b).
The settlement plots of buildings on pile foundation represents a case of deep
excavation of depth less than the pile foundation depth.
Generally, the settlement of buildings on deep foundation, during
executing stages 2 to 4, were much smaller than that occurred in stage 1
(diaphragm wall installation). On the contrary, buildings on shallow foundations
generally underwent considerable settlements with higher rates. This is because
the maximum depth of excavation was 11.5 m, which is much deeper than the
shallow foundation depth but shallower than the pile foundation depths of
buildings A, B, and C. In other words, the settlement gets generated with
influencing values only when excavation occurs near to, or below the foundation
level of buildings. That argument could be supported by the fact that building B,
that is founded on pile foundation, showed a difference in behavior when the
excavation occurred near to its foundation level (pile tip).

6. ANALYSIS OF OBSERVATIONS
Fig. (6) and Fig. (7) show the spatial distribution of the settlement field for
building on deep foundations and on shallow foundations during the different
stages of construction.
The settlement envelope can be mathematically described by adding an
additional component (S
pit excav
) to the trenching settlement (S
trenching
); i.e.,

excav pit trnching total
S S S + = .(2)
The settlement component due to pit excavation only can be described by
the following equation:

=
2
2
max
) ( 2
exp
H K
x
S S
excav pit excav pit
.(3)
Where,
excav pit
S is the settlement at a distance x from the trench,

excav pit
S
max
is the maximum settlement at the wall location, K is a dimensionless
factor and H is the final depth of pit excavation. The anticipated distribution is
similar to that proposed by Peck (1969a) to describe the settlements associated
with shielded tunneling. Parameters of the previous equation were determined
using best fitting analysis on the measured values. The results of curve fitting are
summarized in Table (5).
Maximum settlements of 9.5 mm and 3.0 mm were extrapolated for the
buildings on pile foundations due to wall installation and pit excavation,
respectively. This indicates that most of the settlement occurred during the
trenching stage (about 76%). The maximum settlements of buildings D and E,
on shallow foundations, were 9.5 mm and 12 mm due to wall installation and pit
excavation, respectively. On the contrary to pile-founded buildings, most of the
settlement (about 56%) is attributed to pit excavation.
The settlement component due to pit excavation can be expressed as 0.03%
H, and 0.11% H for the case of pile foundation and shallow foundation,
respectively. However, the maximum total settlement is about 0.20% and 0.12%
of the excavation depth for the cases of shallow, and pile foundations,
respectively.
It can be seen from Figs (6-b and 7-b) that the widths of the settlement
trough, in case of pit excavation, are about 41 m (3.8 H), and 24 m (2.2 H) for the
cases of pile foundations and shallow foundations, respectively. However, in both
cases, the final width of the settlement trough can be practically set to be 3.5 of the
pit excavation depth (~38.0 m) as shown in Figs (6-c and 7-c).
The maximum angular inclinations of settlements are 1/1600 and 1/700 for
deep foundations and shallow foundations, respectively. This points out that no
structural distress would occur as verified by the dilapidation survey.

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The effect of the foundation type and depth on the settlement fields of
buildings surrounding deep excavations was studied based on analyses performed
on the results acquired from a case history carried out in alluvial soils. The
presented case history comprised inclusive settlement monitoring during the
different stages of construction including diaphragm wall trenching and pit
excavation. The compiled data demonstrates that wall construction stage
triggered most of the settlement occurred for pile-founded buildings while
excavation stage produced most of the settlement for buildings on shallow
foundations.
Based on the analysis performed on the data, the extent of the settlement
troughs were found to reach up to a distance equivalent to 3.5 of the depth of
excavation in alluvial soils. The maximum settlement at a boundary of strutted
excavation was found to be in the range of 0.20% of the deep excavation depth.
That settlement is generated only if the depth of deep excavations goes enough
below the foundation depth of the proximate building. On the other hand, the
maximum settlement due to diaphragm wall trenching was estimated to be
equivalent to 0.045% of the diaphragm wall trench depth. The total settlement
trough generated due to cut-and-cover excavations utilizing diaphragm walls will
be the summation of both components; due to diaphragm wall trenching and due
to strutted deep excavation.

8. REFERENCES
1. Abdel-Rahman, A. H. and El-Sayed, S. M., 2002, "Settlement Trough
Associated with Diaphragm Wall Construction in Greater Cairo", the Journal
of the Egyptian Geotechnical Society.
2. Ahmed, A. A. and Abd El-Salam, N., 1996, "In-situ Performance of Subway
Stations in Cairo", Seventh International Colloquium on Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, Vol. 1, pp.
447-460
3. Attewell, P., Yeates, J. and Selby, A., 1986, "Soil Movements Induced by
Tunnelling and Their Effects on Pipielines and Structures", Blackie & Sons
Ltd., Glasgow.
4. Bentler, D. J., 1998, Finite Element Analysis of Deep Excavations, Ph.D.
Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
5. Boone, S.J., 1997, "Ground-Movement-Related Building Damage", Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 11, pp. 886-896.
6. Boscardin, M.D. and Cording, E.J., 1989, "Building Response to
Excavation-induced Settlement", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 1-21.
7. Clough, G. and O'Rourke, T., 1990, "Construction Induced Movements of
Insitu Walls", Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publications 25, pp. 439-470.
8. Dunnicliff, J., 1988, "Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field
Performance", John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
9. El-Nahhas, F.M., 1992, "Construction Monitoring of Urban Tunnels and
Subway Stations", Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Pergamon
Press Ltd., Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 425-439
10. El-Nahhas, F.M., Eisenstein, Z., and Shalaby, A., 1990, "In-situ Behaviour of
Orabi Subway Stations during Construction", Proc. of first Alexandria
Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt,
Vol. 1, pp. 189-198
11. El-Sayed, S. M. and Abdel-Rahman, A. H., 2002," Spatial Stress-Deformation
Analysis for Installation of a Diaphragm Wall", the scientific bulletin of The
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
12. El-Sohby, M.A. and Mazen, O., 1985, Geology aspects in Cairo Subsurface
Development, Proc. of the eleventh ICSMFE, San Francisco, Vol. 3, pp.
2401-2405.
13. Goldberg, D.T., Jaworski, W.E. and Gordon, M.D., 1976, "Lateral Support
Systems and Underpinning", Report FHWA-RD-75-128, Vol. 1, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington D.C., p. 312
14. Leca, E. and Clough, G., 1994, "Construction and Instrumentation of
Underground Excavations", XIII ICSMFE, New Delhi, India, pp. 303-309
15. Murray, R. T., 1990, "Rapporteur's paper", Geotechnical Instrumentation in
Practice, Proceedings of the conference of geotechnical instrumentation in civil
engineering projects, Thomas Telford, London, England, pp. 75-85.
16. Ou, C.Y., Hsieh, P.G and Chiou, D.C., 1993, Characteristics of Ground
Surface Settlement during Excavation, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30, pp.
758-767.
17. Peck, R. B., 1969a, State-of-the-art, "Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft
Ground", Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Mexico Instituto de Ingenira, Mexico City, Mexico, Vol. 3, pp. 225-290
18. Peck, R.B, 1969b, "Advantages and Limitations of the Observational Method
in Applied Soil Mechanics. Geotechnique, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 171-187.
19. Rushdi, S., 1989, "The Geology of Egypt", Balkema, Rotterdam.
20. Seok, J.W., 2001, Settlement behavior of ground and structure adjacent to
excavation site, Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil, Urban and Geosystem
Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
21. Skempton, A. W. and MacDonald, D. H., 1956, "The Allowable Settlements of
Buildings", Proc., Inst. of Civil Engrs., Part III, The Institution of Civil Engrs.,
London, pp. 727-768.
22. Thasnanipan, N., Maung, A. W., Tanseng, P. and Teparaksa, W., 1999,
Behavior and Performance of Diaphragm Walls under Unbalanced Lateral
Loading along the Chao Phraya River, Field Measurements in Geomechanics,
Leung, Tan & Phoon (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 267-272








Table (1) Estimated maximum settlement/depth of excavation adjusted to deep
excavations
Researcher(s)
sands, gravels and very
stiff to hard clays
soft to stiff clays
Goldberg et al. (1976) 0.171% 1.22%
Clough and O'Rourke (1990) 0.30%
Bentler (1998) 0.22% 0.545%

Table (2): Progression of panel executions
Panel
Date of
execution
Length
(m)
Panel
Date of
execution
Length
(m)
1 June 6, 2001 5.90 11 June 24, 2001 2.70
2 August 13, 2001 5.90 12 June 25, 2001 6.13
3 June 9, 2001 6.54 13 June 26, 2001 6.72
4 June 18, 2001 6.54 14 July 2, 2001 5.86
5 June 20, 2001 6.13 15 June 28, 2001 6.54
6 June 11, 2001 6.72 16 July 4, 2001 6.13
7 June 16, 2001 5.86 17 July 7, 2001 6.54
8 June 23, 2001 6.13 18 July 8, 2001 2.70
9 June 21, 2001 6.13 19 July 11, 2001 6.72
10 June 10, 2001 6.13 20 July 10, 2001 6.72

Table (3): Progression of pit executions
Stages Stage (1) Stage (2) Stage (3) Stage (4) Stage (5)
Part (I)
From Nov. 4,
2001 to Nov. 13,
2001
From Nov. 18,
2001 to Dec. 11,
2001
From Dec. 11,
2001 to Jan. 10,
2002
Part (II)
From Nov. 19,
2001 to Dec. 10,
2001
From Dec. 12,
2001 to Dec. 30,
2001
From
Jan.2,2002 to
Jan. 9, 2002
Part (III)
From Jan. 12,
2002 to Jan. 18,
2002
From Jan. 19, to
Jan. 20, 2002
From Jan. 21,
2002 to Feb. 3,
2002
Part (IV)
From June 6,
2001 to
August 13,
2001
From
September 1,
2001 to
October 15,
2001
From Nov.20,
2001 to Nov. 23,
2001
From Nov. 24,
2001 to Dec. 10,
2001
From Dec. 20,
2001 to Feb. 1,
2002








Table (4) Settlement of different points
Point
settlement
due to
trenching
only (mm)
settlement
due to pit
excavation
only (mm)
Total
settlement
(mm)
Point
settlement
due to
trenching
only (mm)
settlement
due to pit
excavation
only (mm)
Total
settlement
(mm)
1 1.1 -0.4 0.7 17 8.6 2.4 11
2 0.7 -0.5 0.2 18 8 4.3 12.3
3 0.9 0.3 1.2 19 7.8 4.7 12.5
4 1.3 1.2 2.5 20 2.5 1.3 3.8
5 1.1 1.2 2.3 21 2 2.5 4.5
6 2 1.3 3.3 22 6 9.1 15.1
7 4 -0.2 3.8 23 6.8 11 17.8
8 5.3 0.5 5.8 24 0.5 0.7 1.2
9 5.3 0.7 6 25 6.5 7.4 13.9
10 6.5 2.2 8.7 26 5.8 6 11.8
11 3.4 1.1 4.5 27 1.1 0 1.1
12 7.5 0 7.5 28 0.3 0 0.3
13 8.5 0.7 9.2 29 0.4 0 0.4
14 8.6 1.4 10 30 0 0 0
15 8.6 1.4 10 31 0.4 2.4 2.8
16 8.4 1.9 10.3


Table (5) Parameters of the Pit excavation component

=
2
2
max
) ( 2
exp
H K
x
S S
excav pit excav pit

Buildings
.
max
exc pit
S
K Trough width
A, B & C
(on pile foundations)
0.03% H 1.25 3.8 H
D & E
(on shallow foundations)
0.11% H 0.75 2.2 H

Table (6) Comparison between measurements and different settlement criteria
Buildings
% Max. Final
settlement/ depth of
excavation
Final Trough
width/depth of
excavation
A, B & C
(on pile foundations)
0.12 3.5
D & E
(on shallow foundations)
0.20 3.5
Goldberg et al. (1976) 0.171 -
Clough and O'Rourke (1990) 0.30 2
Bentler (1998) 0.22 -


Fig. (1): Normalized settlement profiles recommended for the estimation of
settlement adjacent to braced excavation (after Clough and O'Rourke, 1990)

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
SPT (NF/ft)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
FILL
SILT-SAND
FINE SAND,
SOME SILT
GRADED
SAND,
SOME
GRAVEL
V
e
r
y

L
o
o
s
e
L
o
o
s
e
Medium Dense Dense to very dense

Fig. (2) Stratification and SPT data

0
0.5
1.0
0.5 0 1.0 1.5 2.0

v
/
vm
d/H
Settlement Envelope

vm

v

(a) Sands
0
0.5
1.0
0.5 0 1.0 1.5 2.0

v
/
vm
d/H
Settlement Envelope

vm

v

(b) Stiff to Very Hard Clays
2.5 3.0
0
0.5
1.0
0.5 0 1.0 1.5 2.0

v
/
vm
d/H
Settlement Envelope
(c) Soft to Medium Clays
0.75








Fig.(3) Layout of the site and the settlement monitoring system








Key







Fig.(4) Stages of construction

-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (1)
Point (7)
Point (12)

-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (2)
Point (8)
Point (13)

-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (3)
Point (9)
Point (14)

-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (4)
Point (10)
Point (15)

-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (5)
Point (16)

-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (6)
Point (11)
Point (17)
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (27)
Point (18)

-12.5
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (28)
Point (19)

-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (30)
Point (21)

-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (29)
Point (20)

-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (24)
Point (22)
Point (23)

-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1
-
6
-
0
1
1
-
7
-
0
1
1
-
8
-
0
1
1
-
9
-
0
1
1
-
1
0
-
0
1
1
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
1
2
-
0
1
1
-
1
-
0
2
1
-
2
-
0
2
1
-
3
-
0
2
1
-
4
-
0
2
DATE
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Point (31)
Point (26)
Point (25)

Fig. (5): Time-settlement relations for the monitored points

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance (m)
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

d
u
e

t
o

p
i
t

e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance (m)
T
o
t
a
l

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Settlement after trenching
Envelope of settlement after trenching (after Abdel-Rahman & El-Sayed, 2002)
Settlement after pit excavation
Envelope for total settlment after excavation inside the site


Fig. (6): Settlement envelopes for buildings on pile
foundations A, B & C: (a) settlement due to trenching only
(b) settlement due to pit excavation only; (c) total settlement
(a)
(b)
(c)
1600
1
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

d
u
e

t
o

p
i
t

e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

T
o
t
a
l

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance (m)
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

d
u
e

t
o

p
i
t

e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance (m)
T
o
t
a
l

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Settlement after trenching
Envelope of settlement after trenching (after Abdel-Rahman & El-Sayed, 2002)
Settlement after excavation inside the site
Envelope for total settlment after excavation inside the site


Fig. (7): Settlement envelopes for buildings on shallow
foundations D & E: (a) settlement due to trenching only
(b) settlement due to pit excavation only; (c) total settlement

(a)
(b)
(c)
760
1
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

d
u
e

t
o

p
i
t

e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

T
o
t
a
l

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)